What is wrong with that equation? Would that not be how we determine the odds of picking a number at random? Remember, we are talking about the odds. If that is not how we would calculate the odds, please show us how.

the problem is that you are not suppose to multiply all that stuff

the actual ecuación would be X / the smallest of all these stuff (real numbers)(one's time)(one's memory)(y)(z)

so for example

Time = enough time to write a number with 1,000 digits or less

Memory = enough memory to type a number with 10,000 digits or less

Y = enough Y to type a number with 100,000 digits or less

Z = enough Y to type a number with 1,000,000 digits or less

Given that time is the smallest of all, equation would be x/ 1,000

so in other words, it doesn't matter if you have enough memory to type 10,000 digits or infinite XYZ, given that you only have time to type 1,000 digits, 1,000 is your limit.

leroy wrote:many things stop me, time would be an example, even with exponents logarithms decimals or whatever, there is still a limited amount of numbers that can be typed.

Just admit that you don't know any more about mathematics than you do about anything else.

You're demonstrably wrong here, and the fact that you think quoting me in your signature as some sort of gotcha is extremely telling. That statement is a demonstrable fact, despite the fact that you haven't the wherewithal to grasp it.

leroy wrote:many things stop me, time would be an example, even with exponents logarithms decimals or whatever, there is still a limited amount of numbers that can be typed.

Just admit that you don't know any more about mathematics than you do about anything else.

You're demonstrably wrong here, and the fact that you think quoting me in your signature as some sort of gotcha is extremely telling. That statement is a demonstrable fact, despite the fact that you haven't the wherewithal to grasp it.

Wrong, every time something (human, computer, robot etc.) selects a number randomly, it always selects from a finite pool of options, because there is always something that limits the options to a finite number of options. .........I provided indisputable evidence for this and you haven't presented any evidence for the contrary

No. I just typed this:

א‎0

Which is the smallest countably infinite cardinal number.

You lose. Again.

Go on, keep wriggling.

this is the kind of semantic neat picking that moderators should try to prevent.

it is still a fact that the set of numbers that can be typed in a computer is finite. and I already proved it.

What is wrong with that equation? Would that not be how we determine the odds of picking a number at random? Remember, we are talking about the odds. If that is not how we would calculate the odds, please show us how.

the problem is that you are not suppose to multiply all that stuff

the actual ecuación would be X / the smallest of all these stuff (real numbers)(one's time)(one's memory)(y)(z)

so for example

Time = enough time to write a number with 1,000 digits or less

Memory = enough memory to type a number with 10,000 digits or less

Y = enough Y to type a number with 100,000 digits or less

Z = enough Y to type a number with 1,000,000 digits or less

Given that time is the smallest of all, equation would be x/ 1,000

so in other words, it doesn't matter if you have enough memory to type 10,000 digits or infinite XYZ, given that you only have time to type 1,000 digits, 1,000 is your limit.

UNDERSTAND?

Beyond the fact that I do not know how one would determine which was the smallest, why would we only devide by the smallest variable? As I keep pointing out, we are determining the odds. I have never heard of just deviding by the smallest variable to determine the odds. Care to justify your reasoning?

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[Beyond the fact that I do not know how one would determine which was the smallest

you don't have to determine which is the smallest, as long as you gran that at least 1 variable limits your options to a finite set of options, you would prove that the odds are grater than 1 / Infinity

he_who_is_nobody wrote:, why would we only devide by the smallest variable? As I keep pointing out, we are determining the odds. I have never heard of just dividing by the smallest variable to determine the odds. Care to justify your reasoning?

how many McDonald's hamburgers can you eat ? what is the maximum number of hamburgers that you can eat?

in order to solve this problem you will consider all the variables that limit your options

1 the amount of hamburgers that your stomach can tolerate

2 the amount of hamburgers available in the restorant

3 the amount of hamburgers that you can pay for

4 The amount of time that you have available

5 Y

6 Z

the answer would be the smallest of all these numbers, .........agree?

it would be wrong to multiply these variables...............agree?

as long as there is 1 variable that limits your options to a finite number, the answer would be less than infinite hamburgers .............agree?

even if 2 where infinite, the answer would still be a finite number of hamburgers..............agree?

Dandan/Leroy, again we are talking about the odds, not specific cases. Beyond that, you changed the situation to something that would have limits (hamburgers) from something that you admitted is infinate (the real numbers). It is almost as if you know you are wrong. In addition, your "example" demonstrates that you do not know the first thing about calculating the odds. All the variables have to be accounted for to determine the odds. There is nothing that allows one to throwout variables without first justifying that action. However, I did make a mistake with my equation. The variables need to be added, not multiplied.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Dandan/Leroy, again we are talking about the odds, not specific cases. Beyond that, you changed the situation to something that would have limits (hamburgers) from something that you admitted is infinate (the real numbers). It is almost as if you know you are wrong. In addition, your "example" demonstrates that you do not know the first thing about calculating the odds. All the variables have to be accounted for to determine the odds. There is nothing that allows one to throwout variables without first justifying that action. However, I did make a mistake with my equation. The variables need to be added, not multiplied.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I am still waiting for you to do the math and show that you are right. However, I also know just how good you are at running.

I have told you this multiple times, not answering something that has been answered before like 20 is not running away.

As I said before, even if real numbers are infinite, it is still true that there are some variables that limit my chooses to a finite number of options, for example given that I have limited time, I have limited computer power, the site has limited space in the server etc. It would have been simply impossible for me to select a number with too many digits.

There is nothing wrong with the math; the mistake is the claim that all numbers could have been chosen and with the same probability.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Dandan/Leroy, again we are talking about the odds, not specific cases. Beyond that, you changed the situation to something that would have limits (hamburgers) from something that you admitted is infinate (the real numbers). It is almost as if you know you are wrong. In addition, your "example" demonstrates that you do not know the first thing about calculating the odds. All the variables have to be accounted for to determine the odds. There is nothing that allows one to throwout variables without first justifying that action. However, I did make a mistake with my equation. The variables need to be added, not multiplied.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I am still waiting for you to do the math and show that you are right. However, I also know just how good you are at running.

I have told you this multiple times, not answering something that has been answered before like 20 is not running away.

As I said before, even if real numbers are infinite, it is still true that there are some variables that limit my chooses to a finite number of options, for example given that I have limited time, I have limited computer power, the site has limited space in the server etc. It would have been simply impossible for me to select a number with too many digits.

There is nothing wrong with the math; the mistake is the claim that all numbers could have been chosen and with the same probability.

As I have already said, just because you can post a response does not mean you have actually answered anything. All you have done is strung words together in a sentence. You have not demonstrated anything you are claiming to be the case.

Now, care to show your math and actually demonstrate this to be the case? You can also provide a citation that allows you to add limits that would change the odds. Without either of these, you are failing to answer and just running.

As I have already said, just because you can post a response does not mean you have actually answered anything. All you have done is strung words together in a sentence. You have not demonstrated anything you are claiming to be the case.

Now, care to show your math and actually demonstrate this to be the case? You can also provide a citation that allows you to add limits that would change the odds. Without either of these, you are failing to answer and just running.

Again, if you ask me to type a random number from the infinite set of real numbers, I would still have limited options because some numbers are so big (have so many digits) that are impossible to type given my limited time, computer power etc.

That is my answer, feel free to ether accept it as valid or to pretend that you disagree.

Just for the record, are you affirming that events with zero probabilities happen all the time? Is it just an other example where you don’t affirm nor deny anything, you just keep your position vague and ambiguous?

As I have already said, just because you can post a response does not mean you have actually answered anything. All you have done is strung words together in a sentence. You have not demonstrated anything you are claiming to be the case.

Now, care to show your math and actually demonstrate this to be the case? You can also provide a citation that allows you to add limits that would change the odds. Without either of these, you are failing to answer and just running.

Again, if you ask me to type a random number from the infinite set of real numbers, I would still have limited options because some numbers are so big (have so many digits) that are impossible to type given my limited time, computer power etc.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Now, care to show your math and actually demonstrate this to be the case? You can also provide a citation that allows you to add limits that would change the odds. Without either of these, you are failing to answer and just running.

leroy wrote:That is my answer, feel free to ether accept it as valid or to pretend that you disagree.

Keep running, dandan/leroy. It is all you can do. At this point, an honest person would just admit to their mistake, however, we all know that you are far from honest.

leroy wrote:Just for the record, are you affirming that events with zero probabilities happen all the time? Is it just an other example where you don’t affirm nor deny anything, you just keep your position vague and ambiguous?

he_who_is_nobody on April 11, 2017 wrote:Actually, even though he said he was more likely to choose seven, he did not choose seven (that was hackenslash's example). Thus, he actually did only pick 7312004874512 randomly; which also proves hackenslash's point regardless of how much dandan/leroy whines about it.

If only you would actually read what we post, so much time would not be wasted by you asking questions that were already answered.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Now, care to show your math and actually demonstrate this to be the case? You can also provide a citation that allows you to add limits that would change the odds. Without either of these, you are failing to answer and just running

What exactly do you what me to prove?

1 That I have limited time,

2 That I can only write a limited amount of digits (given my limited time)

3 given 1 and 2 I don’t have infinite options

Which one of these 3 points do you find so controversial?

Or perhaps I am suppose to prove something else, please provide a clear answer, remember that I have poor reading comprehension and any unclear answer might be misinterpreted by me

If only you would actually read what we post, so much time would not be wasted by you asking questions that were already answered

Well given that I am a terrible reader and with terrible reading comprehension, why don’t you simply answer with a simple yes or a simple no?

Do you believe that events with zero probability can happen in the real world?

hackenslash wrote:Number 2 is funny. It's almost like somebody who claims an expertise in mathematics sufficient to undermine a core principle of how probabilities work has never heard of exponents...

Even with exponentials (or other short cuts) given my limited time, limited computer power etc. there is still a finite amount of numbers that I could have typed there, are still numbers that have so many digits that it would have been impossible to type.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Now, care to show your math and actually demonstrate this to be the case? You can also provide a citation that allows you to add limits that would change the odds. Without either of these, you are failing to answer and just running

What exactly do you what me to prove?

1 That I have limited time,

2 That I can only write a limited amount of digits (given my limited time)

3 given 1 and 2 I don’t have infinite options

Which one of these 3 points do you find so controversial?

Or perhaps I am suppose to prove something else, please provide a clear answer, remember that I have poor reading comprehension and any unclear answer might be misinterpreted by me

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Now, care to show your math and actually demonstrate this to be the case?You can also provide a citation that allows you to add limits that would change the odds. Without either of these, you are failing to answer and just running.

[Emphasis added.]

Dandan/Leroy, you are no authority. Your word is meaningless based on the actions of your being constantly wrong. Honestly, if you told me the sun was out, I would still double check based on your track record. Perhaps the emphasis will help.

X/(real numbers)+(one's time)+(one's memory)+(y)+(z)+...

Above is the equation again. Care to show your work or do you like the running shoes you have on?

leroy wrote:

If only you would actually read what we post, so much time would not be wasted by you asking questions that were already answered

Well given that I am a terrible reader and with terrible reading comprehension, why don’t you simply answer with a simple yes or a simple no?

Do you believe that events with zero probability can happen in the real world?

In the real world? What other world is there? However, yes. How do I know that?

hackenslash wrote:Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one.

hackenslash wrote:Number 2 is funny. It's almost like somebody who claims an expertise in mathematics sufficient to undermine a core principle of how probabilities work has never heard of exponents...

What? Are you saying that dandan/leroy is talking about something he does not understand? How can that be?

Aja, and what am I suppose to do with that equation? Why are you adding all those factors? I honestly don’t understand why did you conclude that that equation would be accurate.....but…..it is irrelevant, my only burden is to show that there is at least 1 factor that would limit my options, and I already did that. (limited time for example)

he_who_is_nobody wrote:n the real world? What other world is there? However, yes. How do I know that?

hackenslash wrote:Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one.

I should add,just in case you don't read the post, thatr even events with a zero probability happen all the time, and this is trivial to demonstrate.hackenslash wrote:Pick any number on the real number line. Let's say, for example, that you choose the number 7. The probability of choosing that number at random is zero. How? Because the reals are infinite, and any number divided by infinity is zero, hance the probability of choosing 7, or indeed any other number, is exactly zero, yet the probability of choosing some number is exactly one.[/quote]

I personally find it perplexing that you (and hack) truly and honestly believe that the probability of me selecting (or typing) “7” is literally zero despite the fact that I just typed this number.

This study (https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/shawnh ... andomness/) shows that humans are more likely to select a prime and odd number (like 7) rather than a nice round number (like 10) so how should we interpret this data? Is the probability of selecting "10" less than zero? honestly haven’t you detected any logical incoherence?

So in conclusionNot all numbers have the same probability of being selected.

Some numbers are impossible to select (or type)...... (for example numbers with too many digits).